Posted on 07/04/2011 6:00:25 AM PDT by markomalley
So THIS explains Obama’s bowing to the Saudi Kings.
Most insidiously .. it explains his hatred of America ... we have been "captured" for him to f***
bttt
And yet blacks in prison convert to islam in droves.
Forward this to Calypso Louie Farrakhan.
His Islam leanings are laughed at by real Islamics.
He is a joke who uses Islam to build on the hate of his racism.
I think they need to be more aware of the relationship of Islam and slavery....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cT_RSDeAYjI
is a excellent vid they should be aware of.
After watching it, I can not understand why they would want to jump in to the pot...
It also helps explain how armies were raised to “cleanse” the mid east of Christians and Jews. I doubt very much that Arabs were on the front lines excepting where they had overwhelming manpower where the Christians/Jews knew they would be instantly annihilated.
The enemy (Muslims) of my enemy (White Christians) is my friend!
I'd like to see the expressions on the abd's faces when the Muslims enslave them again. He, he!
racist....lies....bush, halliburton...cheney..aaaauguuggghhhhh
We’ve had a long standing problem in our culture agreeing on words to identify African blacks. The ‘N’ word is taboo! One group or another has taken issue with the alternatives (African-Americans, blacks, whatever). Maybe we should show our acceptance of multiculturalism and use the Arab word ‘Abd’. I’ll bet that would light the libs fires.
For example, the phrase ‘Abd Barack Obama’ does have a nice flow to it. Kind of like we’re learning to speak Arabic.
African-Americans were freed by Protestants and in love with Muslims.
Interestingly, slavery had practically died out in the West by the Middle Ages - until the contact with Islam brought it back.
Slavery was not a viable foundation for a “modern” economy and was replaced by serfdom (in the feudal system). As economies and wealth became more trade-based and less land-based, even this gave way to a sort of share-cropper system, something that may have had about the same effect, but was not quite as binding. Vestiges of slavery remained in indentured servitude (and apprenticeships, etc.) but even these were time-limited and the servant was not a chattel slave (that is, a piece of property) but had some limited legal rights.
Slavery returned to Europe after European contact with the Muslims, who captured hundreds of thousands of Europeans and sold them at slave markets, where they were often bought back (”ransomed”) by their families or other entities in Europe. Entire religious orders existed to raise money to buy back captives or even, in some cases, by trading their own members (who would then try to convert the Muslims).
Also, any place that had been invaded by the Muslims (such as Spain and Portugal) had had a slave-market installed by the Arabs during their occupation.
After the expulsion of the Muslims, the Portuguese were for some reason the great commercial negotiators in the Middle Ages. They would sail off to the Arab slave markets to buy back European captives. But because of Portuguese contacts with Africa, eventually they began buying African slaves from the Arabs simply for resale, and this was the beginning of Portugal’s involvement with the slave trade.
The same was true of England, also, which became involved in the slave trade through its Middle Eastern contacts.
Some European countries (Spain, at least) had a modified form of slavery which was essentially indentured servitude, where the slave was subject to very restrictive laws, but had legal rights and protections and was supposed to be permitted to earn money and buy his freedom or be manumitted. They usually practiced even this only in their colonies. Others, such as England and Portugal, practiced flat-out chattel slavery (like Muslim slavery) in their colonies.
Yuo might be on to something there.
There are some facts that won’t penetrate minds that are set against them.
... so its not just the black man who suffered slavery?
I agree , slavery has been the fuel for economic expansion.
You are making me think of the traditional “family” farm for some reason....
Thank you for your posting, it was very informative.
One reason a non-Muslim slave could be treated any way their so-called master wished is because such a slave could not testify in court against his master.
If by “the ‘N’ word” you mean Negroid, why is this a problem? It is a word in the dictionary and in scientific literature. It even has its own page in Wikipedia, an encyclopedia that if frequently used by teachers in public schools.
Another word we have seemed to banish lately is “mulatto”, a word that the dictionary defines [2] as:
“a person with one white parent and one black parent, or more broadly, a person of mixed black and white ancestry.”
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negroid_race
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulatto
Arab armies would use their slaves to fight for them, to tire out the enemy and only then would the Arabs fight.
I would think that the Arabs would only step in after all risk to them had been absorbed by their slaves. I could readily see them stepping in at the very tail end of a genocide.
They are basically chicken szchits and we see it today in their hiding behind women and children.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.